Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

Gotta have both.

I'm not trying to claim superiority for never having dropped a phone - I understand that different people have different needs, and one of them is a phone that can survive frequent falls. However, I also recognize that features that myself and others use regularly are often removed from models that emphasize durability, whether or not their removal is actually helping, or just cutting costs. So I don't want to push phone manufacturers to focus so much on that one feature - that is important to some, but not to others - that they end up removing features that are equally important to certain people.

That's exactly my point. Different people have different needs, so while OP is right that there should be phones for themselves and yourself that address the fact that a significant portion of the population drop their phones regularly, my own needs follow a different hierarchy that benefits from a separate set of features.

The fact that phones are all kinda just the same, with any changes made to one model frequently rippling through to other models from other manufacturers in time, is an issue. The customization to phones shouldn't only apply to external features like cases and dongles.

I got my first cell phone in middle school, and I knew that if it broke I wasn't getting another one, so I made sure to hold it securely when using it, since I didn't want to drop and break it. When I eventually upgraded to a smartphone a few years after they started getting popular, I held it even more securely, since it was even more expensive, and even more fragile. At this point it's just second nature to me to handle phones like I'm transporting fine china.

I agree that the features are possible while still making the phone sturdier, which I wholeheartedly support, but I also understand that capitalism doesn't usually let us have upgrades, only tradeoffs, and usually bad ones.

I agree that there should be phones that prioritize sturdiness for clumsy people, but I see things like sturdiness and waterproof capabilities used as an excuse to get rid of useful features, and I don't like it. I've had cell phones for over 2 decades, and I've never dropped one; having an SD card slot and headphone jack is much more important to me than durability, since I rarely hold it over water, and always make sure to keep a solid grip regardless of the circumstances.

Keep it around so you can stick it on any particularly stubborn bananas or oranges later on.

Well, yes, but that's kinda my point. If you don't patent, you get exploited, like how the discoverers of insulin synthesis decided not to patent, so companies patented similar, but not exact methods, and now it's incredibly expensive. But, as you said, if you do patent, there is still a risk of exploitation if the patent holder sells to an exploitative company. However, that exploitation is still less likely than when not patenting, so I support the practice so long as patenting is still possible.

I worked at a small nonprofit back when genes were still able to be patented; we mostly studied the condition Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum, and held the patents to a few of the genes associated with it. However, we still allowed people to research them freely - we only patented them to prevent a company like Myriad Genetics, who had been patenting genes so that they could sell expensive genetic tests, from patenting it instead. We celebrated when genes were no longer able to be patented; I imagine that the researchers working with golden rice will do the same if we're ever lucky enough for GMO's to no longer be able to be patented.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was working for a small genetics nonprofit when they removed the ability to patent genes, and the whole office had a party to celebrate. It was mostly a celebration about freedom to research and test, but we were also very excited to no longer have to deal with having a bunch of patents. Even though we let people research the genes freely, we still had a bunch of paperwork that needed to be done any time someone wanted to do so.

Selection technically isn't modification, since the modification had to have already occurred for it to be selected for. However, modification certainly did occur, and all crops are genetically modified. Indeed, all living creatures are genetically modified, as without modification, evolution can't occur.

The public fear of GMO's is largely due to Monsanto, who aggressively protect their GMO crop patents to the point where farmers who just happened to have some seeds blow into their fields have been sued.

The issue with GMO's isn't the modification, it's the lax patent laws that allow companies like Monsanto to exploit people for profit, giving a bad name to the field as a whole, in spite of the immense potential good it can do, for which Golden Rice is a prime example.

The huge difference is who holds the patent. The example you gave involves Monsanto, the patent holder for several GMO crops, and a terrible company that does everything in its power to make money by exploiting people. Golden Rice, however, is patented by the scientists who designed it, who likely only patented it so that a company like Monsanto couldn't just make some similar GMO and patent it instead, using it to exploit people even more.

This same thing happened back when genes themselves were able to be patented; some companies like Myriad Genetics would patent genes like the BRCA gene, a common source of inherited breast cancer predisposition, so that they could charge an arm and a leg for testing. So, researchers and non-profits would patent genes that they found just ensure they could be fairly studied and tested for.

The issue with the high-paying medical profession is that it attracts 2 kinds of people: nice people who want to do good and help people, and self-centered people who want to feel powerful and in-control while making a bunch of money. The latter are the reason for shit like this. I'd bet that she doesn't care about children at all, and just wants to feel powerful, while raking in the cash from rich people looking to use her license to validate their terrible behavior.

Attack on ramen

You'd think so, right?

Negative change worms it's way in through small defeats. The first DLC's were a small price for a lot of content, the first YouTube ads were only a single ad that was just a few seconds long, the first video game preorders came with amazing rewards, etc. When you allow for 2 seconds, then what's 3 seconds? What's 4, 5, 6? What's 30 seconds? What's 2 minutes? We've seen examples of this all throughout capitalism's history; to ignore them is, well, ignorant.

Just get a shoebox of shoebox pills and you can just get a box of 10's and 20's whenever you need.

I'm not discouraging at home novelty tests like ancestry and 23andme, I'm discouraging their use in the situation you've described, because that's not what they're intended for. I'm very sorry for your situation, and I hope that you find the information that you're looking for, but you're more likely to find it with actual paternity tests than trying to glean information from a test that's not meant for that.

As for the medical comments, ancestry isn't meant to provide that. It's not actually sequencing the DNA, it's just checking for specific sections of DNA that are known to vary between different ethnicities. Some health information can be assessed in that way, but its inclusion in at-home tests was made illegal because those sorts of results need to be handled with a genetics professional so that they can explain the complex results and their impact on the individual and their family. Some at-home tests have added medical information back in, but that's legally dubious, and considered to be dangerous by genetics professionals.

If there are any medical concerns, a different DNA test should be used, and should be ordered by a genetic counselor or geneticist. Situations like these are one of the reasons why genetic counselors exist - please don't believe that adding a medical professional to the mix is a bad thing - genetics is a very complex topic, and having someone trained to understand and explain it is invaluable. Please let them help you in your endeavor.

Well, the Ancestry test only really gives stuff like... ancestry. It's not useful for much else, and for good reason - it's meant to be a neat novelty, not a medical or paternity test. I'm a former genetic counselor, and we generally don't suggest getting DNA tests for children unless it's important for health reasons, or if they're old enough to give their own consent for it - that sort of information is very personal, and often people don't want it to be available in their health records.

If you are simply wondering about ancestry, you could always get the test yourself - anything the test shows for you would at least give that side of the kids' ancestry. Obviously parenthood verification can be useful, but from your other comments you seem to be aware that a mother doesn't need such a verification, and it's generally not recommended that you use ancestry tests for that purpose anyway. If you're concerned about any genetic issues in your family, I'd highly recommend talking to a genetic counselor; they can help organize the family history and see if there's anything you'll want to be cognizant of.

You want a DNA test because your kid doesn't share the same interests in video games that you do? Sure, there's likely a set of genes somewhat contributing to preferences and interests in humans, but even if we knew them, we've already got plenty of evidence that biological children frequently have different hobbies than their parents, so we know things like that are most heavily determined by all of the other things people are influenced by in life, outside of genetics.

Frozen? Every parfait I've had has just been yogurt with berries and jam in it. Also, yes, if you use chocolate sauce instead of gravy, you can absolutely call it pork au chocolat. It would probably be better if you switched out the pork for something like pancakes, but you do you; one of the best things about food is that you can do whatever you want with it.